Acer Hit by Ransomware - Hackers Want $50M
Acer fell victim to the REvil ransomware group responsible for the attack of several other companies over the past months, reported Bleeping Computer. The attackers are demanding $50 million from the company.
The ransomware gang was able to enter the company’s system and stole important files from the company. To prove the legitimacy of its demands, the group leaked some of the information on its “Happy Blog.”
Some of the sensitive info released by the gang includes bank balances and communications, and financial spreadsheets. In a statement, the tech giant said that big companies such as itself are often being attacked by malicious actors. To protect from such actions, “Acer routinely monitors its IT systems, and most cyberattacks are well defensed.”
The firm also revealed that it has filed reports regarding “abnormal situations observed to the relevant law enforcement and data protection authorities in multiples countries.”
Regarding its actions to address the current situation, Acer said, “We have been continuously enhancing our cybersecurity infrastructure to protect business continuity and our information integrity.”
The company added that it is currently investigating the matter, which prevents it from disclosing more details. The ransom demand is considered the highest by the gang, which ordered the payment in Monero. The approximate amount of $50 million is equal to around XMR 214,151 in the said cryptocurrency. The former highest ransom is $30 million demanded by REvil from Dairy Farm.
The Microsoft Connection
Bleeping Computer also revealed that the group attacked a Microsoft Exchange server associated with Acer. According to cybersecurity expert Vitali Kremez, “Advanced Intel’s Andariel cyberintelligence system detected that one particular REvil affiliate pursued Microsoft Exchange weaponization.”
Bleeping Computer noted that the DearCry ransomware has also exploited the ProxyLogin bug in Microsoft Exchange. However, this group’s attack is smaller in scale compared to REvil. The cybersecurity-focused outlet also remarked, “Of REvil did exploit the recent Microsoft Exchange vulnerabilities to steal data or encrypt devices, it would be the first time one of the big game-hunting ransomware operations used this attack vector.”
SC Magazine and Bleeping Computer attempted to contact the company but it refused to answer. It also did not provide verifications that the attack was possible through a vulnerability in the Microsoft Exchange servers. Meanwhile, the company recommended that other organizations assess their ransomware risk to minimize any avenues for malicious actors to attack.
Senior Member
Posts: 10483
Joined: 2006-02-14
I failed at nothing, who are you trying to fool? Clearly you know no one is buying what you're saying, are you just trying to convince yourself? Sure seems that way. You demand 100% proof knowing it's technically not possible, cross your arms even though the evidence is obvious and is a growing mountain, and say "ha I win". Okay buddy, keep living in denial.
You can turn a blind eye all you want, but there are only 2 likely outcomes: Either the crypto paradigm dramatically shifts into something less... criminal and unsustainable, with something closer to real world value, or it will be outlawed. If it ever grows enough to get outlawed, or change, you'll remember what I told you.
Senior Member
Posts: 8199
Joined: 2010-11-16
My power usage isn't comparable to the tiniest fraction of a fraction of any of these mining operations, or even regular Joes who merely transfer Bitcoin funds.
Once
Go ahead, look up how much power merely transferring Bitcoin costs.
Twice. Therefore not an accidental error.
Transactions are the input of hashing algorithm. Finding the right block in order to validate and clear transactions is known as mining. In a sense clearing transactions is all that mining does. Security and creation of new coins is just a byproduct of mining.
Is why "merely transferring bitcoin" makes no sense.
Unless if by "merely transferring Bitcoin" you really mean that sending coins from your wallet results in a meaningful consumption of energy on your end. That would be mind-bogglingly stupid, OK?
Senior Member
Posts: 8199
Joined: 2010-11-16
No they don't. And even if they did, at least it's not for pulling currency out of thin air to fuel a crime ring, or for some delusion of grandeur if it's a single person and not an operation.
Yes they are, but I am not going to bother proving it, because you already brushed this aside.
See... this is what I have been telling you from the start. Our verbal duel is nothing but the clash of value judgments: you see clothes dryer as something obviously useful.
I see them as beyond stupid and a complete waste of energy over a slight inconvenience of having to hang your clothes. I don't know a single person using them outside of a ship/yacht.
And its opposite with crypto: zero value for you, useful for me.
Pointless argument started because you embarked on proving that "cryptos are to blame". And now that you failed, you're accusing me of mental gymnastics and of being stickler for technicality.